In China,no matter protesters' behaviors are good or bad,if protects hold banners signed with foreigh languges including english mean arrogant, disrespectful and very rude to general public.You can not get any sympathize from general public, even you are the poorest people.
Those protesters in the photo don't know the basic common sense in China? So most people will guess that they have been paid by some foreign political organisations.
I am glad to recomment the Kazakhs video again,some people will konw what I want to talk:http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTAwOTU4MTgw.html

This article says the right thing: what Chinese people really needs is freedom!!! Free to express their own ideas, free to accuse corruption, free to say out the problems exist in China. The current situation in China now is that you might be in danger if you say the truth. It seems easy for someone in power to let you disappear in the world. It's horrible! Mr Xi does a good role model to the officials, but the problem is whether the officials would take Mr Xi as a good role model. I think most of them won't change their habit of being a Chinese style official.

'what Chinese people really needs is freedom!!! Free to express their own ideas, free to accuse corruption, free to say out the problems exist in China.'
/
/
that's all good. but if you truly believe what you are saying there, you should be honest and brave enough to send in your view to one of tens or hundreds of web sites in chinese in china where many chinese netizens do and some with more drastic words. that should do some good.

but squealing on a non-native language site? what good will it do to your china or your cause?

Same to you.. You seem to believe that everything is perfect in China, so why not spend your time trying to persuade Chinese netizens that life is so good and they should cease their complaints? Squealing your "four legs good, two legs bad" mantra on here will do no good.

I wonder if this picture was taken in China because it is strange that Chinese people would use english words to express their concerns to the Chinese authorities.
If this picture was really taken in China, it means that the protest was directed towards the english-speaking countries and the english-speaking countries. In which case, it means that the protest funded and supported by western-speaking countries.

English is not the language of the Chinese and it is not used by the Chinese in China, especially when it is directed towards the government.
If a Chinese wants to be heard by the Chinese government, he uses the Chinese language. He does not use the English language even though the English language might be a global lingua franca or considered as such by the English-speaking people.
If ever a Chinese uses the English language, it is because he is directing his message to foreigners and not to the Chinese Government.
That is why this picture is either taken outside China or, if it is taken in China, it is because the protesters are paid by foreign countries.

People's message can be directed BOTH to Chinese government AND the world, there is nothing wrong with that, and that is why the sign is BILINGUAL, and NOT ONLY in English.

Besides, English IS an offical language in China (part of China, specifically Hong Kong, and also used widely as unofficial with semi-official characteristics, e.g. on Shenzhen Metro, along with Yue Yu/Cantonese, which is also only official in Hong Kong, and shunned in the Mainland).

There is no point to use capital letters to emphasise your points because your points are not valid and show your ignorance of the matter.
When foreigners want to be heard both by the Chinese government and by the World, they use the Chinese language and a foreign language to express their message.
But when a Chinese wants to be heard by the Chinese government, he directs his message to the Chinese government in Chinese. He does not use a foreign language and he does not make the characters of the foreign language bigger than the characters of the Chinese language.
You are not a Chinese and obviously you do not understand it.

Oh, but there is quite a strong one (i.e. point in using capitals) with people who ARE capable to comprehend. With simpletons like yourself, nothing could help.
Anyway, I am not here to elucidate you, because you are brainwashed, but to talk to whomever I choose to, and it is none of your business to tell me HOW -- or indeed WHAT -- I shall write.
However, one must reiterate that when Chinese people want to send a message AT THE SAME TIME to the Chinese government whom they NO LONGER trust (and are therefore asking for the Commies to step down) AS WELL AS to the outside world, they have every single reason to use signs in two or more languages.
And seeing that Yue Yu speakers have been discriminated for a logn time on the Mainland (unlike Hong Kong), they have a reason to make THE LAST DITCH appeal to the Chinese government before... oh, I do not know, perhaps proclaim independence just like the Scottish, Catalan, Texan, etc. counterparts would do in a stand off with their own governments, addressing the whole world at the same time and calling the world to side with them.
Eventually, it is you who is "obviously" the one about whom one could say s/he is "not Chinese", because you sign with a French male name, so you have no clue what you are blabbering about. On the other hand, your stupid propaganda is unmistakenly Commie, and that tells me it might well be Chinese (because most other countries that had Commies in power before have gotten rid of them, sometimes in a very bloody fashion -- e.g. Romania).
But, since you are rather boring, I will not be replying to you any more.

Well, pity is that you as a Chinese citizen cannot see the actual protest nowhere in your state controlled authoritarian media. You can never know true facts as long as your society is regulated by the CCP. So your posts are always based upon assumption and false imagination. Even your mentality has been deformed as long as you rely on the CCP media.

I am afraid I very strongly doubt that. Even a formerly independent country as big and populous Texas has no chance to fight the US on its own, unless the US agrees to let it go (which it won't unless it weakens much more than it is weakened now by being duped into playing the world's police).

Even much smaller and less important countries like the UK cling to their territory (look at the once again renewed issue of Falklands), though they will probably have to let Scotland go.

HKG will be allowed to keep some level of autonomy over the prescribed 50 years and then... it will be fully integrated into a brutally capitalist China. But it is way too small to stand off to China.

I agree that"Reform of the labour-camp system would be welcome, but more change must come soon",but how and what to reform?I recommend Bell898's in a similar topic in TE:

Bell898Jan 11th, 09:59

Although I am always against detaining/imprisoning people for political reasons or without a fair trial, the word 're-education through labour' is not always a bad idea for real criminals (e.g. drug traffickers, murderers, rapists etc.) as long as some basic rights and conditions are set in place.
When I watched reality shows like 'Brat camp' or its variants, where unruly western kids sent to some harsh environment or work on a farm so they can change their attitude, I can't help but to think the words 're-education through labour'. Also, isn't compulsory community service also a more relaxed form of this system for offenders? I also think the CCP is not good at picking English words for their various 'systems', like 'propaganda' instead of 'PR management' etc.
What needs urgently changing in China at the moment is not scrapping the idea of 're-education through labour' but to make their judiciary system more fair and transparent, and stamp out illegal detainments and 'black prisons'.

By the way,let's look on the other side:there is Kazakhs political video which will keep us a cool head.The video is really very intresting and vivid.http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTAwOTU4MTgw.html

Of all things, “we need freedom” banner in English in a Chinese protest in China to the authority who read mainly in Chinese?

Were there elements among the demonstrators peddling for foreign influence or being infiltrated by foreign influence already, as the picture seems to suggest?

For one thing, the thinking that Western English media is world’s “mainstream thinking” is false and outdated.

Chinese print newspapers with tens of millions of readership have far bigger circulations then Western newspapers. With 172 million broadband subscribers and 750 million mobile internet users (out of 1,200 million mobile users), and assuming that “All men are created equal” being correct, then China today is by far the largest “mainstream thinking” IMO.

For another, the Western “universal value” is not necessarily the “universal value” anymore, at least as viewed by many in the developing economies.

Having said that, IMO and in many ways Chinese now enjoy more freedom than many Western nations. For example:

Item, Chinese have their own “universal value”, but they have the freedom not to force or imposing others to practice their value system, even when they were in a position to do in earlier history.

Item, at $8.1 trillion of GDP (market exchange rate) for 2012, China is still very poor on per capita basis, but China is free from net national indebt ness.

Item, unlike many other larger “democracies”, China by and large is free from sexual and racial discrimination, legally and socially, by a large margin.

Item, although still far from being good (literacy is only 94%), China now spends a full 4% of its GDP on education as required by constitution. Chinese will soon be free from “Johnny cannot read”.
………

The West actually needs not to fear the growth of China. China’s opening up and reform to build a state of socialism of Chinese characteristics are not fundamentally different in implementation to the “New Deal” social reform and economic stimulation, including protection of labor forces, social security, public works, wage and hour laws and assistance to farmers, of the US Roosevelt Administration commenced in 1933.

As stipulated by the top leadership in China, making mistakes are allowed in the process of reform and opening up in China. “Southern Weekend” may or may not be handled properly, but “Mainstream” English media should not nit pick some anomalies out of a large majority of China’s norm.

“Beating to death” the “Southern Weekend” with article after articles by the Economist is unworthy in contrast to its slight of Northern Ireland protests, unless the motive here was to instigate or brew some “Spring” in China.

Fortunately, China can stand such disturbances to destabilize or defocusing its national development in progress, IMO.

1.To say China is largely free from sexual and racial discrimination is completely incorrect. There is exactly 0 woman on the standing committee of the Politburo. There are very few financially/politically successful racial minority figures. Homosexuals are disdained by the entire society.
2. 4% of GDP on education is nothing to brag about. If you calculate that into a per student figure then it is not impressive at all. Chinese parents spend a huge amount of their AFTER-TAX INCOME on their children's education. If anything, the Chinese educational system needs a huge reform.
I view myself as a Chinese Nationalist. I love my country and my people very much. But what that means is that I can take any constructive criticism with an open heart. One should never disregard the fact that China has made a huge leap in the past few decades. The CCP undoubtedly has made many correct decisions, else there wouldn't be a "new middle class" here today.
To say the Economist is beating the Southern Weekend incident to death, however, is a unreasonable accusation. If you pay ANY attention to the Chinese internet these days, the Southern Weekend incident is all that people talk about recently. You are spinning the story around VERY, VERY hard. Personally, I feel that the Economist is very friendly to China in general. The article you and I are replying to merely talks about an event.
If you get paid to do what you do, Mr.nkab, you need to do a better job.

The third issue aimed by the people is to expose the officials families finances.

This one is on the track with several "experimental" regions in Guangdong.
And it is a tough one too, to apply nationally. There are reports that the luxury Hotels already start to suffer as many now don't dare show their riches.

Till now, we see that the Chinese would have taken a consensus to go Singaporean model instead of Taiwanese one. That's why, as one journalist in Southern Weekend said, that they didn't want to corner the government to take radical response, but their point was made.

“Four dishes and a soup” is an old slogan from the 80's! An old Chinese friend who used to run a state owned guesthouse told me how he used to creatively get round the restriction when entertained official VIP. He would ask the chef to cook 12 dishes, but spread every 3 dishes onto one very large plate, so that the 12 dishes conform to the 4 dishes regulation. Furthermore, he would ask the server of expensive rice wine to hide the bottle and pour the wine into a plane container so that it can be dub as local inexpensive wine, but everyone really know what it is! Now, more than 30 years on, we are still talking about the same slogan, and I bet there will be more creative ways to get round the restrictions this time round. The officials will not be robbed of their entitlement!

Fun fact, on Baidu Baike (China's Wikipedia, so not 100% reliable), the "Four dishes and a soup" saying is attributed to Ming Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, who lived 1328-1398. Not a new slogan in any way at all!

Incremental social reform follows rather than lead economic revolutions - paradoxically, its our defining flaw as an avaricious, consumption driven species that makes possible China's tweeting and twittering towards freedom.

By contrast, greater poverty, violence and despair characterises the Muslim world, simply because fundamental 'Ribi' tenets of their archaic Sharia law forbid the compound interest arithmetic fundamental to accumulation of capital: interest, credit and savings instruments.

Tanks, missiles and "Arab springs' will not reduce the conspicuous gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'; it will be the fast tracking and export of modern Pakistani Islamic banking, which rebrands interest on finance as rent - rent payable to the bank, for a house or car bought on credit, and payable by the bank or investment to the saver for the use of his capital.

eventually we'll arrive there, a democratic and free country. The question is what kind of cost Chinese and outsider will pay in the transition. German, Japan and Russia, those countries' transition is never a domestic issue, so is China.

Hopefully the Red Army will soon tire of killing their cousins and then the Chinese will be able to impose reforms to the corrupt killing Communists. The Chinese have suffered enough from their oppressors.

When you learn the truth about your Chinese history you will know that the Communists have killed far more Chinese than the Japanese ever did. While the Japanese lie about their history during the 1930 to 1945 period too, at least most of the rest of the world keep reminding them about it. In China, the Communists do not allow freedom of speech or media and censorship is extremely intensive and penalties harsh.

You "forgot" to mention that without the military help of the USA during WW2 there would even more Chinese killed.

Granted, the Generalissimo and his gang of corrupt ministers, just like the present CCP, never cared about their population and let them die like flies, but the role of the West in helping China fight Japan cannot be denied.

Try to find the memoirs of Joseph Stilwell, Claire Chenault or even Curtis LeMay. Will help to clarify the pathetically biased view you sport.

That seems a superficial reading of history.
Yes the communist party killed far more Chinese than Japanese invasion, but the intent certainly was advance society - however misguided they were in economic policies.

It would be like blaming the Indian government for mass murdering millions through preventable infant mortalities and poverty, which is equally faulty.

Censorship does not mean total deprived of knowledge - most people in China knows what CCP has done in Tiananmen.

and CCP's killing of its own citizen justify nothing Japan did to China and other nations. Use it for comparison can only show one's disguised inhumaneness. If in doubts ask elder Americans and South Korean or Philippines.

As to how people are satisfied / dissatisfied with government. I guess we hate the government as much as people in UK. Only difference is Brits can be lead by either 1) labour, 2)democrats,3)Lib, or any combo. And Chinese people get told once a decade (in theory every 5 years). Not too much difference I guess.

The deal was imaginary instead of implicit. There was no such deal at all. The ruled learned from 1989 to make some changes to improve the situation in economics, other wise social crisis would soon be back again. People got scared from the massacre and took longer from the suppresion.

"For Mr Xi, a pragmatic authoritarian, the calculation is different, but if he knows what is good for him and his country, he will arrive at the same answer."

Did the rulers of Egypt, Libya or Syria know what was "good for them and their country"? Yes. Did they do it? No. They did the exact opposite, with inevitable results.

Surely TE is not so naive as to think that autocrats are eager to "do the right thing". If they were, we would all be living in liberal democracies.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our species is avaricious by nature, which is why democracy is designed to force regular changes in government with rigorous seperation between executive and judiciary.

It is that seperation which is currently under attack in Sri Lanka. But if Sri Lanka implodes, as looks increasingly likely, no-one will notice except the unfortunate residents of that island.

China is different: if China implodes, it will take the world economy down with it, and the ensuing chaos will drag in it's neighbors and trading partners. Do they understand this? Probably. Will they do the right thing? Probably not.

Have Egypt, Libya, or Syria sustained 30 years of economic growth, pulled 600 million people out of poverty, and is on the way to become the world's largest economy? Has a single Chinese leader been in power for the past 30 years? Maybe you should get off your moral high horse and realize the fact that liberal democracy is not necessarily the destiny of China.

First, democracy is simply the rule of majority, there's nothing else to it. Separation of powers, and regular change in government posts are neither isolated to democracies nor do all democracies practice them, they are simply good practices that, among others, form a set of laws that are suited at dealing with the human condition.

Every country forms a complex system, and the government the controller whose job is to keep the system moving forward while remaining stable. Dictatorship is simply an open loop system, and your argument is simply a statement of fundamental flaw in any such system. Democracy is a simple feedback system, it uses votes as feedback and a null value as the setpoint, while effective, its primitive, its primitive because it was conceived in an age with primitive means of obtaining feedback and actuating control.

What China is trying to practicing now is neither dictatorship nor democracy, it is a combination of full spectrum of feedback, rational control law and assertive actuation. People's opinion, financial condition, environmental condition, strategic condition and other factors are all taken into account as feedback into the controller, while the controller itself is made up of those who have dedicated their life to studying the dynamics of the system. Of course what has been achieved is still far from the goal, but it is the natural evolution of the simple feedback system that is popular democracy.

The search for policies that's best for a country is one of the oldest quest in human history, men used to guess at it, then they voted on it, it is time they start to use reason to derive it.

One of the key difficulties for the Chinese government is that the interests most threatened by reform are at the bottom of the state pyramid more than the top. It is lower level officials who have abused the political prisoner system, just as it is lower level officials whose ilicit revenue streams are most threatened by press freedom. Can the central government carry out reform of a prison system and press freedom by fiat, when local authorities are sure to resist, or must they first weaken those local authorities in some way. Yes, reform is needed or instability will result, driven by public unhappiness. But a different kind of instability will result if the lower levels of the Communist party resist reform by ignoring orders from Beijing.

It is of course not just the lower ranks who prifit. The most basic reason for China's graft is that some top officials are very corrupt as result of their uncontrolled power. But it has been testified that it actually the case of Wen is a rumor, which is designed to disgrace him. The new emerging top leaders also seem much better in terms of integrity compared with their predecessor.

I also think the risk to reform is more at the lower echelon of the party organs and local government. This means the reform should be a long process and people need to be patient. But recent rise of internet and CCTV exposures of corruptions of local officials is quickening the reform process in China, something similarly experienced in Taiwan of exposing corruptions by TV and newspapers.